On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:45:39 +
Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
>
> My top of mind suggestions on what might be a good idea to avoid
> trouble (getting your traffic auto-Junked, or your IPs blocked) might
> include the following, for what it's worth:
>
> If you get a sample from any FBL, for
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:02:05 -0400
Al Iverson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:24 PM, wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:53:16 -0400
> > Al Iverson wrote:
> >
> >> This also brings us back to the issue of what happens when security
> >> devices or services click the link, instead of the subscri
On 9 Jun 2016 16:11:17 -
"John Levine" wrote:
> >It's a public document and I welcome requests with updates...
> >https://github.com/Lockhead/oneclick/blob/master/draft-herkula-oneclick.txt
>
> Hmmn. One the one hand, I'm definitely in favor of making it as easy
> as possible for people to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 11:53:16 -0400
Al Iverson wrote:
> This also brings us back to the issue of what happens when security
> devices or services click the link, instead of the subscriber. In this
> scenario, it sounds like it would cause an unsubscribe that was not
> actually requested by the reci
On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 14:30:29 +0200
Dave Warren wrote:
> On 2016-06-09 12:23, David Hofstee wrote:
> > Same here, auto-unsubscribe presumed. The https is a nice addition
> > that I will pass along. I hope that all implementations can handle
> > https. Did people verify?
> >
> > I treat it nearly
Hi List,
I'm working on a document about a topic that came out of an open
roundtable discussion at M³AAWG, it is more or less a way for mail
senders to signal that a URI in the List-Unsubscribe Header has
"One-Click" functionality and therefore can be triggered by backend
systems to provide MUA us
I normally don't handle the office infrastructure and wasn't even aware
of this until this thing happened. We disabled all external forwards
and only allow pop3 fetch now if somebody wants or needs to use his own
mailbox. Thx for the advice.
On 3 Jun 2016 17:14:46 -
"John Levine" wrote:
> >r
Thx, the problem was solved on friday evening.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:50:51 -0700
Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> This throttle seems excessive, even though it's only temporary. I've
> filed a bug against our spam team to take a look.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:30 AM, wrote:
>
Hi,
I'm currently seeing only this error
421-4.7.0 Our system has detected an unusual rate of unsolicited mail
originating from your IP address. To protect our users from spam, mail
sent from your IP address has been temporarily rate limited. Please
visit https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81
I'm currently trying to wrap my head around this S/MIME signature
thing, is there any best practices document besides the couple of RFCs
that says something about the alignment between the used cert and the
5321From or 5322From? Like for SPF that must align to 5321From and DKIM
that must align to 5
Hi,
I'm currently testing some of my configs and stumbled over the following Text:
"identity alignment result is fail and alignment mode is relaxed"
it comes directly from this Outlook.com Authentication-Results Header:
> Authentication-Results: hotmail.com;
> spf=pass (sender IP is 193.169.18
11 matches
Mail list logo
